Alex_UNLIMITED wrote:Thanks, Greyman, but I've read right now that characters with no stamina can't take extra effort.

Just to clarify here, things with no stamina can't do extra effort. That's not the same thing as having immunity to fort. Characters with immunity to fort can do extra effort, as long as they have stamina.

1) For the distance rank, the first penality to thoughness must be counted or not? If the character has already a penality to thoughness, must be counted for the distance rank?

As I've tried to explain to you before, as it's a made up optional rule you get to decide how you want it to work. Either the penalties don't count, or they do. Just pick a way and stick with it. I would pick that the penalties don't count, but that's just me.

2) Power attack and similar bonus or malus to the damage rank is applied to knockback for calculate the distance rank?

Knockback is based on damage rank at the time of the attack. If your damage is increased due to power attack then your knockback is increased. If your damage is decreased, due to a penalty or accurate attack, then your knockback is decreased.

3) To counter an attack, must I declare this action before I know if the attack hit or miss me?

You must have a ready action to do a counter, or use a hero point for an instant counter. You can't counter if you're not ready.

4) In the previous page, Bladewind talk about a very good way for counter a physical attack.I've read the countering effects, and is an opposed check based on the rank. So, this physical attack counter can't be applied?

Counter is only supposed to work for opposing descriptors. Light versus dark, fire versus water, and so on. The descriptors need to make sense. I personally wouldn't allow speed to counter a punch, as I don't consider them opposing forces. It's a gm's call, but I would consider it a little imbalanced.

5) If I use a stunt based on flight, but my flight speed have a malus or a bonus, the stunt changes?

Power stunts are based on the available points at the time. If your points are decreased your stunt points are less too.

Monolith wrote:Counter is only supposed to work for opposing descriptors. Light versus dark, fire versus water, and so on. The descriptors need to make sense. I personally wouldn't allow speed to counter a punch, as I don't consider them opposing forces. It's a gm's call, but I would consider it a little imbalanced.

Wehre as i'm much more loosy goosy with counters & probably would allow it depending on the type of game i was running: Its all a matter of personal style really.

“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”-Isaac Asimov

Monolith wrote:Counter is only supposed to work for opposing descriptors. Light versus dark, fire versus water, and so on. The descriptors need to make sense. I personally wouldn't allow speed to counter a punch, as I don't consider them opposing forces. It's a gm's call, but I would consider it a little imbalanced.

Wehre as i'm much more loosy goosy with counters & probably would allow it depending on the type of game i was running: Its all a matter of personal style really.

If you allow counters loosy goosy then why have the defend maneuver? Should Superman be blocking Doomsday's punches or should he be countering them? If the Flash can use his superspeed to counter Superman's punches why would he ever dodge? And how do you justify a pl limited ability like damage to be countered by a non pl limited ability like speed? Doesn't that start to cause balance problems when done regularly?

I like to be as loose as the next guy, but I think you need to use the mechanics in the rules, and if I want Flash to dodge Superman I feel I should be doing defend.

Monolith wrote:Counter is only supposed to work for opposing descriptors. Light versus dark, fire versus water, and so on. The descriptors need to make sense. I personally wouldn't allow speed to counter a punch, as I don't consider them opposing forces. It's a gm's call, but I would consider it a little imbalanced.

Wehre as i'm much more loosy goosy with counters & probably would allow it depending on the type of game i was running: Its all a matter of personal style really.

If you allow counters loosy goosy then why have the defend maneuver? Should Superman be blocking Doomsday's punches or should he be countering them? If the Flash can use his superspeed to counter Superman's punches why would he ever dodge? And how do you justify a pl limited ability like damage to be countered by a non pl limited ability like speed? Doesn't that start to cause balance problems when done regularly?

I like to be as loose as the next guy, but I think you need to use the mechanics in the rules, and if I want Flash to dodge Superman I feel I should be doing defend.

Because the only way to counter is to ready an action, which means you lose your action for this round. The only other alternative being to spend hero points to insta-counter, but since you only have two hero points at sessions start & even the flash is going to need to dodge more than two punches from Superman, its not like he can counter all day instead of dodging. An even when he does decide to use a counter its no guarantee of success.

An lets be honest here the Flash spending every round to ready an action to avoid being hit by Superman is something we've seen before in comics, so its exactly "in genre" for super-heroes.

Using more exotic counters is the kind of thing players interject into the midst of combat for those "yeah, i'm just that awesome" moments... That moment when flash catches a bullet in mid-air rather than just dodging it, that moment when the the Two Iron Fists hit each others iron fist attack... The moment when a Powerhouse throws a truck at a paragon & the Paragon uses his heat vision to explode it mid flight... The moments of pure awesome that no other system has ever been able to replicate.

These are the moments that super-hero comics are made of & the rules specifically say: "The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not an effect with a particular descriptor can counter another." So thats why i'm more loosy goosey with the countering rules than you appear to be... Because they are so much fun for players & GM's alike.

Always keep in mind that M&M 3E is not a rule set, its a tool kit... A tool kit that can be used to run many different sorts of superhero games.

“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”-Isaac Asimov

@Monolith: Just because you have a prefered alternative, does not invalidate using insta-counters the way other people have mentioned... My prerence for chocolate icecream doesn't suddenly mean you aren't allowed to either like or eat vanilla ice-cream.

Countering over defending allows players to use there powers in interesting, new, dynamic ways, without having to invent an entirely new rule set specifically for doing just that. Thats why there is no list of what counters what in the book & is instead left up to the GM. Because where as you might be running a Gotham-esque Avenger of the Night game, all about superbly trained humans without powers fighting meta-human street crime, in which you don't want someone energy blasting the truck thrown by the power house as an insta-counter: I'm hypothetically running the JLA'esque game in which that totally fits the tone of my campagin.

Both are acceptable under RAW, its purely a stylistic choice made by the GM (which is why its written as GM's discretion in the rules).

An i'll be honest with you, countering is much more fun than taking a defend action though: Its pure style.

“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”-Isaac Asimov

saint_matthew wrote:Both are acceptable under RAW, its purely a stylistic choice made by the GM (which is why its written as GM's discretion in the rules).

The difference is that in the RAW, you're intentionally supposed to have opposing descriptors to do a counter, which you're willing to forget because you prefer loosy goosy style. I'm not saying loosy goosy style is wrong. I'm saying that players need to learn the rules first, and then once comfortable with the rules can then decide how loosy goosy they want to get when throwing in their own gm's discretion.

The OP is trying to learn to spell A, B, C and Dick loves Jane and you're throwing quotes from James Joyce's Ulysses at him. It's just muddying up the water, imo.

Monolith wrote:The difference is that in the RAW, you're intentionally supposed to have opposing descriptors to do a counter, which you're willing to forget because you prefer loosy goosy style. I'm not saying loosy goosy style is wrong. I'm saying that players need to learn the rules first, and then once comfortable with the rules can then decide how loosy goosy they want to get when throwing in their own gm's discretion.

Except that the book says no such thing. What it says is & i quote:

In some circumstances the effects of one power may counter another, negating it. Generally for two effects to counter each other they must have opposed descriptors. For example, light and darkness can counter each other as can heat and cold, water and fire, and so forth. In some cases, such as magical or mental effects, powers of the same descriptor can also counter each other. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not an effect with a particular descriptor can counter another.

The rule as written in RAW is completely contigent on GM discretion. Thats why you'll note that it does not say MUST, or DOES but instead uses words like SOME, CAN & GENERALLY. Its giving an option, its not giving a carved in stone holy dictate: Its literally written to be flexible & contignent on the individual GM's desire. An again i'll remind you that its not a rule set, its a tool kit. It was designed to be able to run all sorts of different supers styles.

Somone asked a question, so how about we give the right answer & the right answer is that neither way is wrong: They both work under RAW.

“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”-Isaac Asimov

Monolith wrote:The difference is that in the RAW, you're intentionally supposed to have opposing descriptors to do a counter, which you're willing to forget because you prefer loosy goosy style. I'm not saying loosy goosy style is wrong. I'm saying that players need to learn the rules first, and then once comfortable with the rules can then decide how loosy goosy they want to get when throwing in their own gm's discretion.

Except that the book says no such thing. What it says is & i quote:

In some circumstances the effects of one power may counter another, negating it. Generally for two effects to counter each other they must have opposed descriptors. For example, light and darkness can counter each other as can heat and cold, water and fire, and so forth. In some cases, such as magical or mental effects, powers of the same descriptor can also counter each other. The GM is the final arbiter as to whether or not an effect with a particular descriptor can counter another.

The rule as written in RAW is completely contigent on GM discretion. Thats why you'll note that it does not say MUST, or DOES but instead uses words like SOME, CAN & GENERALLY. Its giving an option, its not giving a carved in stone holy dictate: Its literally written to be flexible & contignent on the individual GM's desire. An again i'll remind you that its not a rule set, its a tool kit. It was designed to be able to run all sorts of different supers styles.

Somone asked a question, so how about we give the right answer & the right answer is that neither way is wrong: They both work under RAW.

I'm just thinking: Superman's punch is not a power, it's a simply melee attack. To counter an attack, it must be an effect, not a simply punch. I think that is clear in the rules.

Alex_UNLIMITED wrote:I'm just thinking: Superman's punch is not a power, it's a simply melee attack. To counter an attack, it must be an effect, not a simply punch. I think that is clear in the rules.

Except you'd be wrong at the base level: A punch is a power because in an effect based game, all powers are effects, even non powers are effects (most just have no physical manifestation). How exactly are you throwing that punch? Oh with a Strength of 10, that would be a 10 in strength, which would be a direct counter of 10... In exactly the same way that nullify can be used to nullify Strength, even though strength is not a power.

See how that works.

Countering like that appears in comics all the time. A Shadowmancer throws a whole wave of shadow spikes (Blast 10, Area: Cone) & so the Earth-Controller spends a hero point & counters by immediately raising a wall of stone to deflect them. A power house throws a mid sized sedan at a paragon & the paragon spends a hero point to immediately counter with a blast of heat vision destroying the car in mid-air.

There was no way that the book could adjudicate every possible outcome in a "what counters what" chart, so its been left up to the GM's discretion... An i'll be honest, its a lot of fun & keeps the game fresh as players come up with creative uses for both hero points and powers in combat, rather than just trying to horde them.

“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”-Isaac Asimov